In his final press conference of the year, President Barack Obama told reporters on Friday that despite the fact that former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden’s disclosures have accelerated the national debate about national security and civil liberties, he has caused “unnecessary damage.”

“I think that as important and as necessary as this debate has been, it is also important to understand that it has done unnecessary damage to United States' intelligence capabilities and to US diplomacy,” he said. “But I will leave it up to the courts and the attorney general to weigh in publicly on the specifics of Mr. Snowden’s case.”

Further Reading

Obama was responding specifically to comments from last week by the NSA’s incoming number two official, Rick Ledgett, who said that “it’s worth having a conversation about” possible amnesty for Snowden, the former NSA contractor. (At least one tech leader has recommended to Obama that he grant Snowden a full pardon.)

“There's a difference between Ledgett saying something and the president of the United States saying something,” Obama added.

By contrast, a former CIA director had a much harsher suggestion for Snowden.

"I think giving him amnesty is idiotic,” said James Woolsey, who ran the CIA from 1993 to 1995, in an interview this week on Fox News. “He should be prosecuted for treason. If convicted by a jury of his peers, he should be hanged by his neck until he is dead."

“Just because we can do something doesn’t mean that we necessarily should.”

The president said that he would spend his Christmas holiday in Hawaii reviewing the report issued this week by the Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, which issued dozens of recommendations.

“The fact of the matter is that the US, for all our warts, is a country that abides by rule of law that cares deeply about privacy, that cares about civil liberties, and cares about the constitution,” he added. “We have countries that do these things that Snowden says he's worried about, engaging in surveillance of our own citizens, targeting citizens, targeting members of the press who are able to sit on the sidelines and argue that it's the US that has problems when it comes to surveillance.”

Obama also specifically talked about the Patriot Act’s Section 215 program, which compels telecom firms to hand over bulk metadata to the NSA.

“In all the reviews of this program that have been done, there have not been incidents in ways that the NSA acted inappropriately in the use of this data, but what is also clear from the public debate is that people are concerned with the prospect of abuse,” he said, “and think that’s what the judge in the district court suggested. And although his opinion obviously differs from rulings on the FISA Court, we’re taking those into account.”

However, President Obama’s assertion is directly contradicted by the “LOVEINT” disclosures, when NSA agents knowingly used the spy infrastructure to monitor romantic partners and their exes. Further, newly declassified documents from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court show that judges have routinely been appalled at the NSA’s behavior and track record.

“The question we’re going to have to ask is: ‘Can we accomplish the same goals that this program is intended to accomplish in ways that give the public more confidence that the NSA is doing what it’s supposed to be doing?’ I have confidence in the fact that the NSA is not engaging in domestic surveillance or snooping around,” Obama concluded.

“But I also recognize that as technologies change and people can start running algorithms and programs that map out all the information that we’re downloading on a daily basis into our telephones and our computers, that we may have to refine this further to give people more confidence, and I’m going to be working very hard on doing that.”

“And we have to provide more confidence to the international community. In some ways, what has been challenging is the fact that we do have a lot of laws and checks and balances and safeguards and audits when it comes to the NSA, and other intelligence agencies are not spying on Americans. We’ve had less legal constraint in terms of what we’re doing internationally. But I think part of what’s been interesting about this whole exercise is recognizing that in a virtual world, some of these boundaries don’t matter anymore. And just because we can do something doesn’t mean that we necessarily should. And the values that we’ve got as Americans are ones that we have to be willing to apply beyond our borders and perhaps more systematically than we’ve done in the past.”

Sorry, Obama. It wasn't Snowden that crossed the lines as much as NSA did when they went from the scope of spying on governments, politicians, and terrorists, to spying on corporations and their own citizens and allies. The "unnecessary damage" was already done before Snowden leaked any material. The difference between pre-Snowden and post-Snowden is simply that before the leaks, we didn't know what the damage was, and now we do, and can act as appropriately as we should have been able to do from the beginning.

It's sad that little that has been leaked actually harms national security. I would find Snowden's leaks awkward in that case. But this is almost entirely about crossing lines. Almost entirely about "unnecessary damage".

Mr president, are you reading this? Deal with the facts. By tarnishing Snowden's image, it would accomplish nothing. You still have to deal with the fallout of these leaks. What changes you have in store for us? I have to wait and see. Anything short of new laws and regulations to regulate the NSA is not permanent. Administrative changes can be changed and revised depending on who is the president or the head of the NSA. I still don't freaking get it that our constitutional right to privacy has been breached and no one is getting punished for it. And the whole third party data retention and storage operations are laughable. We know that this third party would have ties to the NSA! Mr president, for most of us, we have a problem with the perception of being spied on. Not so much of being actually spied on. After all, most of us aren't terrorists. Is the perception. Is the mind. You have to change the mind. Unfortunately, if you can't change your own mind, you can't change others.

I take the following quotation to mean that Obama believes the NSA has not misused its surveillance programs' data:

Quote:

there have not been incidents in ways that the NSA acted inappropriately in the use of this data

If so, maybe someone should remind Obama of LOVEINT. Furthermore, the programs themselves are abuses of power, regardless of what is done with the data. It's troubling that the guy ultimately responsible for reforming the NSA doesn't see problems with it.

How are we to believe anything else Obama says on this matter if he can't admit this simple truth?

Totally agree, but what else can he do at this point. He can't condemn the security agency that he was in charge of. It's silly to expect a politician to fall on their sword.

Sure you can, if you just give them the... appropriate persuasion. It'll serve as a good warning to those that come after, that just because you're the most powerful man in the world, you will be held responsible for your (in)actions. Gotta let them know eventually.

Not really if you are the head of state or the CEO of a major commercial entity....Then, spying is real as it gets. For most of us, it is the perception, but the perception is real. We read about in the news.

How are we to believe anything else Obama says on this matter if he can't admit this simple truth?

Totally agree, but what else can he do at this point. He can't condemn the security agency that he was in charge of. It's silly to expect a politician to fall on their sword.

Yes, I expect politicians to tell obvious truths even when it involves showing them in a bad light or admitting mistakes or complicity in problems. I am usually disappointed, but I still expect it.

The truth is A) There were abuses even of the extremely broad legal authority at the NSA. B) Those abuses were protected from proper oversight by an abuse of secrecy, C) this 'discussion' would never have happened if someone like snowden didn't publicly release this information, and D) reporting misbehavior through channels has been proven not to work. Until any politician admits these four facts, nothing they say about the NSA is credible or worth listening to.

If we can't get to a point where the president or congressional leaders admit the obvious facts as a baseline for deciding what to do next, the NSA is too dangerous by nature and should be shut down entirely.

And if he used the "correct" channels to disclose this, nothing would have been done.

Let's not forget that multiple other whistle blowers did go through proper channels already:

Quote:

When a National Security Agency contractor revealed top-secret details this month on the government's collection of Americans' phone and Internet records, one select group of intelligence veterans breathed a sigh of relief.

Thomas Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe belong to a select fraternity: the NSA officials who paved the way.

For years, the three whistle-blowers had told anyone who would listen that the NSA collects huge swaths of communications data from U.S. citizens. They had spent decades in the top ranks of the agency, designing and managing the very data-collection systems they say have been turned against Americans. When they became convinced that fundamental constitutional rights were being violated, they complained first to their superiors, then to federal investigators, congressional oversight committees and, finally, to the news media.

To the intelligence community, the trio are villains who compromised what the government classifies as some of its most secret, crucial and successful initiatives. They have been investigated as criminals and forced to give up careers, reputations and friendships built over a lifetime.

Today, they feel vindicated.

They say the documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old former NSA contractor who worked as a systems administrator, proves their claims of sweeping government surveillance of millions of Americans not suspected of any wrongdoing. They say those revelations only hint at the programs' reach.

In all the reviews of this program that have been done, there have not been incidents in ways that the NSA acted inappropriately in the use of this data

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. LOVEINT was already mentioned, and that's not the only publicly-disclosed abuse of the program that's out so far.

More to the point, though, is that whoever's in charge of White House PR (and maybe it's him, I don't know) is obstinately refusing to get the point. The inappropriate action was the COLLECTION of the data in the first place. And because he didn't even use the word "illegal" this time, nobody can even hide behind the "it was all collected within the confines of the law" line that they tried and failed to pacify the public with.

Honestly, though, I'm glad they're continuing to vilify Snowden. If they had even a lick of sense, they would bow to public opinion and soften their position on Snowden so people like us would stop getting so worked up about their bullshit. Instead, they forge ahead trying to paint this picture of Snowden as a treasonous terrorist sympathizer, a picture that almost nobody in even the most mainstream media is buying into, and it only galvanizes the public. Seriously, if you told me in the beginning that people would still care about the NSA scandal so many months after the initial revelations, I would have cynically called you crazy. We owe it to the US Executive's tone-deaf response to the ordeal that I was wrong.

As someone who held a clearance for half of his career, I cannot abide total amnesty for Snowden. He knew exactly what the consequences were for his actions, and if he believed in his cause that strongly, he should be willing to accept those consequences instead of running off to Russia.

I don't think he should be hanged by the neck until dead, but he shouldn't be pardoned or receive amnesty. Greatly reduced or minimal sentence, certainly, but not amnesty.

Yes, this debate needs to be had; yes, the NSA and CIA and FBI have clearly been abusing their power and spying on citizens, legally and illegally; yes, but for Snowden's unauthorized disclosures we wouldn't know the scope or extent of the abuse. As a self-professed Obot, I am deeply frustrated and angry with the President, and he hasn't been wowing me with excuses. This shit should have been stopped on Jan 2, 2009. I'm more than happy to blame a lot on the batshit-insane wing of Congress, but the President owns this. This is LBJ-level bullshit.

Congress needs to repeal the Patriot Act in full and place real, meaningful limits on domestic surveillance, and the President should accept those limits without complaint. And that needs to be the first thing on the agenda when everyone gets back to work.

How are we to believe anything else Obama says on this matter if he can't admit this simple truth?

Totally agree, but what else can he do at this point. He can't condemn the security agency that he was in charge of. It's silly to expect a politician to fall on their sword.

Yes, I expect politicians to tell obvious truths even when it involves showing them in a bad light or admitting mistakes or complicity in problems. I am usually disappointed, but I still expect it.

The truth is A) There were abuses even of the extremely broad legal authority at the NSA. B) Those abuses were protected from proper oversight by an abuse of secrecy, C) this 'discussion' would never have happened if someone like snowden didn't publicly release this information, and D) reporting misbehavior through channels has been proven not to work. Until any politician admits these four facts, nothing they say about the NSA is credible or worth listening to.

If we can't get to a point where the president or congressional leaders admit the obvious facts as a baseline for deciding what to do next, the NSA is too dangerous by nature and should be shut down entirely.

I get what you are saying, and the idealist in me agrees. But I honestly hope he doesn't do that.

If he turns around and says that what the NSA is doing was wrong and illegal, where does that leave him? He's either complicit in a crime, or he didn't know. If he didn't know then he's either inept, or the NSA lied to him.

The political fallout from any of those scenarios would be of nuclear proportions. It wouldn't just be the end of his presedency, but it would be the end of the Democratic Party, at least in the short term, and destroy US diplomacy, and permanently damage the office of The President. None of those things are in Americas interests. It would end the conversation on snowden and the NSA, everyone would be focused on the political scandal, instead of the real security and privacy issues.

Based on the article, it sounds like he's doing the most responsible thing given the circumstances. He's acknowledging some of the issues and admitting there is room for debate and change. This is a marked improvement over the original rhetoric at the beginning of the leaks.

With the federal judges opinion, various bills moving through congress, this most recent report, and the presidents acknowledgement of the report, the momentum is starting to swing towards fixing this fucked up mess we got into thanks to the NSA.

The worst thing that could happen to 'the cause' would be to make the conversation about Obamas failings, instead of about the changes needed to right the wrongs.

Sometimes you've got to let people save face to accomplish the greater good.

President will spend winter holiday in Hawaii <strike>reflecting on surveillance policy</strike> doing vacation things like he has done every year.

Let's be honest, though. The man has a family that deserves to have his attention during the holiday season. I mean, I have issues sometimes with some of the perks of such public positions but this is one I can get fully behind. Yeah, he can't take a day completely off, but he certainly can be there and do holiday stuff with his kids. I would respect him not at all should he do differently.